Author: TSA Press

This holiday season, you could listen to the hundreds of versions of “All I Want For Christmas Is You” or you could listen to legal podcasts and stay engaged with the legal industry even during your Christmas break. Whether you’re looking for ABA updates, tips about using the cloud for your firm, or legal perspectives of current events such as gun violence, Legal Talk Network has the legal content to keep you updated while you sip your hot chocolate and decorate your tree. Happy holidays from Legal Talk Network!

The Murder of Innocence Edition: A Look Back on the Laurie Dann School Shooting with Eric Zorn

Before school shootings were common, Laurie Dann shot 6 children in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Illinois, killing one and severely wounding the others. @theBar discusses what’s changed, what hasn’t, and what can be learned from the Dann case that could help us restore peace in our schools.

Why the Cloud is the New Electricity–and What it Means to Lawyers

Though it was slow, the innovation of electricity became mainstream in the late 1800s and fueled other technological advances. Cloud innovations are similar in that, while they make processes faster and more efficient, lawyers still drag their feet. Digital Detectives share tips for making better use of this important technology.

ABA Projects and Pursuits: A Conversation with President Judy Perry Martinez

What projects are the American Bar Association working on this year?

Law Technology Now hosts talk to President Judy Perry Martinez about the many issues of concern at the ABA from the future of legal services and access to justice, to voter rights and law student debt.

The Education of Brett Kavanaugh

New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly talk about their book The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation. In it, they share what it was like to report on Kavanaugh’s nomination in real-time and speak with the women who accused him of sexual assault. They also share the conclusion they came to at the end of their year-long investigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Sandy Hook Families’ Lawsuit against Remington Arms

Earlier in November, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims can proceed with a lawsuit against the maker of the Bushmaster firearm used in the attack. This episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer takes a look at the Supreme Court’s ruling and the potential impact this lawsuit may have on gun violence victims and the gun industry.

Highlight Reel: The Paralegal Voice’s Year in Review

2019 isn’t quite over yet so how are you doing with your professional goals for the year? Host Carl Morrison shares his personal progress while also highlighting the most memorable moments for the Paralegal Voice in 2019.

Bring Your Human to Work with You: Using Your Strengths to Grow Your Business

How do you tap into personal strengths and how can this benefit your business? This Lunch Hour Legal Marketing explores a unique take on personal branding for lawyers and how lawyers can identify their most relevant strengths so that they can employ these strengths in the business and practice of law.

Introverted lawyer offers tips for office holiday parties

Holiday parties are made for fun but they can be stressful for thos

e who are introverted or have social anxiety. But this doesn’t mean introverts need to skip holiday shindigs altogether. The ABA Journal’s Asked & Answered shares some tips to help you come out of your shell when navigating office parties.

The Science of Charisma & Awkwardness, with Vanessa Van Edwards

What makes charisma appealing and effective? This episode of Lawyerist explains what factors into charisma as well as awkwardness and how even the most awkward person can operate with more charisma.

The Roberts Court Is Here

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern joins the Above the Law’s Thinking Like A Lawyer to discuss his new book American Justice 2019: The Roberts Court which provides a glimpse of the Roberts Court and how it was impacted by Kavanaugh’s controversial arrival on the bench.

Bonus:

Welcoming Ralph Baxter to Law Technology Now

Ralph Baxter, former Orrick Chairman and CEO, brings his experience innovating law firms and advising legal technology companies to the microphone on Legal Talk Network’s Law Technology Now podcast. Tune into the first couple of episodes featuring his expertise.

Rugby fans can wager on any player on any player or team on Betway. But, most of Zimbabwe’s talented rugby players play for other countries. Read on to learn more about these four top Zimbabwean rugby players.

1.      Takudzwa Ngwenya

Takudzwa was born in Harare on Jul 22, 1985. He started his rugby career with the Mashonaland Club. The Zimbabwean winger later relocated to the U.S. and played for Plano Rugby Club and Dallas Athletic Rugby Club. He later joined the United States national rugby team. Takudzwa made several tries in the 2007 Rugby World Cup against Samoa and South Africa.

Eddie Jones, England’s coach offered him a trial with the Saracens but Takudzwa received another offer from Biarritz. He signed a two-year deal with the rugby club on November 6, 2007. The winger played for Top 14 for nine years. He scored two tries during the 2007/2008 Heineken Cup and helped the French side reach the Heineken Cup final the next season. Takudzwa scored five tries in the 2010/2011 Heineken Cup.

2.      Tendai Mtawarira

Tendai is a retired rugby player who played for the Sharks and the South Africa rugby team. He was born in Zimbabwe and later acquired South African citizenship. Rugby fans nicknamed him ‘The Beast.’ the Zimbabwean prop made his first appearance for South Africa on June 14, 2008, against Wales.

The Zimbabwean born player had a great 2008 Super 14 season. He was a reserve in the South African game against the Wallabies. Tendai showed his prowess when he scrummed against Phil Vickery in 2009. He received the man-of-the-match award. He conceded a few penalties when playing against Adam Jones in his second test.

He is one of the most capped South African rugby players in history with 117 caps. Also, Tendai is the 17th forward globally with the most caps. He won the 2019 Rugby World Cup. Rugby fans can visit https://www.betway.co.za/luckynumbers to try their luck using their luck and to bet on Rugby.

3.      Donovan Wade Armand

Wade was born in Zimbabwe on September 23, 1988. He represents Exeter Chiefs in the prestigious English Premiership. The Zimbabwean flanker played his first game for Western Province on March 10, 2012. The club defeated Boland Cavaliers 51-22. Donovan scored one try in six appearances in the 2012 Vodacom Cup tournament. He played in the final 2020 Australian tour game against Western Force after Nick Koster and Duane Vermuelen sustained serious injuries.

4.      Brian Mujati

Brian was born in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe on September 28, 1984. He started his professional rugby career playing for the Lions as a prop. The prop moved to the Stormers in 2008 and later joined the Saints. His career at Springboks didn’t last long since he lacked South African citizenship. He later joined the Northampton Saints.

The Zimbabwean national rugby team competes in regional and international tournaments. The Zimbabwe Rugby Union administers the team. It comprises of talented players. However, most of the finest players from this South African nation play for other countries. They include Takudzwa Ngwenya, Brian Mujati, David Pocock and Donovan Armand. You can wager on them on Betway.

Post published in: Featured

The “practice-ready” law school model is oft-discussed and rarely implemented, but maybe technology will finally force law schools to focus on teaching practical skills. Joe and Kathryn chat with Jessica Robinson, Vice President of Client Services at Casepoint, about the maturation of the eDiscovery process, the project management lessons that fuel effective discovery, and the importance of learning the theory of discovery before entering an increasingly automating practice.

Findings from the 12th Annual Law Department Operations Survey – Webinar

Findings from the 12th Annual Law Department Operations Survey – Webinar

BLICKSTEIN GROUP & ABOVE THE LAW

Inheritance and last wills and testaments are great subjects for theater and movies. We have all watched the family members, veiled in black, sitting around the attorney conference table for the reading of the decedent’s last will and testament. Disappointment, rage, and confusion often ensue, and the plot unravels to reveal a multilayered family thriller replete with emotion and suspense.

In reality, that kind of drama is often relegated to the screen as last will readings are not common, and most disappointed individuals react through the courts as opposed to some of the farfetched situations Hollywood and Broadway present. What makes last wills and testaments a prime subject for entertainment is the purpose it plays in connecting the dead with the living. It also creates issues of inclusion versus exclusion, disparate treatment, and it sparks just the right amount of drama for family, friends, and business partners who cannot help but explode. The main character, the decedent, is always missing, which adds to the uncertainty and keeps the plot moving.

In real life — and sometimes in fiction — a last will and testament may be contested by disgruntled or disappointed relatives. The document may be challenged based on the testator’s lack of testamentary capacity (he did not have the mental ability to sign the will), due execution (the document was not drafted or executed correctly), undue influence (someone influenced the testator to sign the particular will  by asserting extreme influence unto him), and fraud or mistake. Practitioners will note that proving fraud or mistake as to a last will and testament is very difficult. Instances of fraud occur when a testator did not actually sign a last will and testament, that perhaps a different document was given to him to sign and then replaced with the proffered last will and testament. An instance of fraud may include an individual falsely informing a testator that his children were dead so that the estate may be bequeathed elsewhere. Under a fraud concept, there are also instances when a last will and testament is forged, meaning, the supposed decedent was not the actual testator. He did not sign the proffered last will.

Forgery is an example of the intersection of criminal law and the practice of trusts and estates. Real life has just emulated what is often found on the screen: an Arkansas woman, Donna Herring, was sentenced to 41 months in prison for forging a last will and testament of her daughter’s ex-boyfriend. Charges including wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud along with money laundering, and aggravated identity theft charges.

The testator, Matthew Jacobs, had an  estate that was valued at approximately $1.7 Million. Jacobs was a survivor of a 2012  oil rig explosion and received significant monies as a result of his injuries. He died in 2015 as a result of a car accident. The forgery allegedly occurred five days following Jacobs’ death. The record reveals that Henning  used an online program to write and sign the last will. The online component added to the cyber-related federal charges.

After Jacobs’ death, the decedent’s son and brother searched the home for a last will and testament but could not find one. Herring alleged that she found one in the decedent’s gun safe. Hennings’ daughter, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law were also convicted as part of this matter.

The drafting and execution of last wills via software programs at home, without the guidance of attorneys, makes it easier for individuals to attempt forgeries or to assert undue influence onto the testator. When attorneys meet with testators we speak to them, often  on multiple occasions. We pick up on issues surrounding their lives, and we are sometimes suspicious of the motives of others. What is learned from the Jacobs case is to inform a competent responsible individual of one’s last will and testament, and other estate planning concerns. This may mean a close family member, friend, or attorney. In this case, Henning and her family did not get away with their crime, however, there are certainly many instances when testators and estates are taken advantage by individuals. With even minimal effort we can assure that this does not happen in our lives.

---

Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com. 

Wondering what to get your business partners this holiday season? Yeah, me neither. The mere fact that I am still present after these yearlong shenanigans is gift enough.

But if you were going to get your business partners something and a crash course in why MFNs are the biggest letdowns since New Coke is out of your price range (I mean, time is money, right? And how many times have you already given that speech?), then consider giving them the gift that keeps on giving.

And one so many of them desperately need.

When I think about the fine art of CYA, I always think of Ronin, one my very favorite (and vastly underrated) heist movies in which a pre-GOT Sean Bean turns to Robert DeNiro and says, “You’re worried about saving your own skin?” To which a smirking DeNiro replies, “Yeah, I am. It covers my body.” Bah-zing.

CYA is Attorney 101. It’s instilled in us early and often from our very first Contracts class: GET IT IN WRITING. Because when the chips are down and recollections fail you, somewhere there is an email that will set you free. Or damn you to the pits.

I never kept a diary as a kid. I find day planners intimidating. But man, do I keep stellar email records. Particularly on deals where I advocated for one thing and the business decided to go in a different direction. Of course, I document that with the partner on copy. Why? Because while I respect the ultimate decision of my partners to make their own (bad, so bad) decisions, I’m not taking the fall for them. If I indicated a clear preference for one course of action based on sound legal reasoning, then if something does go wrong, I’m not going into “the sky is falling, fall to your knees and grovel for your job” mode. I’m more “sweep in and save the day” mode which is a much more advantageous position. Sure, I didn’t cause the problem, but I’m honored to be part of the resolution. And that’s an important distinction — if you like keeping your job.

So, I find it rather surprising that more business partners don’t do this. I find myself asking over and over again if the partner kept notes from that meeting or call. And the responses I routinely get?

“I trust them not to screw me.”

“Sending a follow-up email shows a lack of faith.”

“That’s now how business deals work.”

“Who has time for that shit?”

“I don’t know if you know this, but emails don’t hold up in court.”

I do really love that last one. I don’t know about you, but I love it when my people bizsplain me what’s legal and what’s not…

Gag-reflex-inducing excuses aside, I always take a deep breath (and remind myself to think of my bonus, think of the money) and explain that sometimes it’s not a matter of one side engaging in gamesmanship or bad faith. Sometimes, it’s just the he said/she said/they said one thing and you heard another. It’s the lack of agreement, the ghost of law school classes past — we don’t have a meeting of the minds — looming over a conversation. Or, if I’m in a rush, I just tell them that memories are fleeting, but emails are forever. I also use that same explanation for why we don’t document certain things. I’m a contradiction, wrapped in a Snuggie, with law school loans to keep me warm.

But, just think of what a better, less whiny world we’d live in if our business partners bothered to document their conversations once in a while. Think of the time we’d save if business partners would exercise an ounce of self-preservation.

I’m just saying, be the change you want to see in the world. Give your business partners the gift they really need this holiday season.

---

Kay Thrace (not her real name) is a harried in-house counsel at a well-known company that everyone loves to hate. When not scuffing dirt on the sacrosanct line between business and the law, Kay enjoys pub trivia domination and eradicating incorrect usage of the Oxford comma. You can contact her by email at KayThraceATL@gmail.com or follow her on Twitter @KayThrace.

It’s that time of year again where we look back, take stock of the year in law, count the bonuses rolling in and order another round. With that in mind, we’re throwing a holiday party here in New York, and you’re invited!

So, if you want to grab some drinks and food on ATL, RSVP here! This year we’ll have our party on December 10th at Houndstooth Pub on 8th Avenue at 37th Street.

Want to brag about your bonus? Share a war story? Take a break from studying for finals? Catch up with your favorite (it’s me, I know it is) ATL editor? All are welcome!

Here are the details:

When: Tuesday, December 10th
Where: 520 8th Avenue, New York, NY 10018
Time: 6pm – whenever we stop drinking

Remember to RSVP soon to guarantee your spot and we’ll see you in December.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Although principled and academic voices regularly criticize Tucker Carlson, he nevertheless commands one of the largest right-wing populist followings. Accordingly, Carlson’s recent rhetorical support for Vladimir Putin in any foreign policy arena should be viewed as representing one of the great political shifts by a large section of the right of the 21st Century. I will not pretend to know what it forebodes that the national Republican Party within living memory of Ronald Reagan appears, in parts, to be aligned and furthering Putin/Russia propaganda — nothing well. And to make matters worse, it appears that such drastic shifts where they exist on the right represent a long-term trend, not limited to this president or Tucker’s presence. In other words, although he commands widespread influence, neither Carlson nor this president represent “the Hokey Pokey,” they are not what it is all about.

It is the millions who put this president and Tucker Carlson in positions of power that are the issue. Not only has this support openly embraced a version of socialism that drastically raises taxes and government handouts to favored industries that are damaged by said tax increases. It more destructively continues to maintain vile, racist elements. In the end, however, the support for Carlson may only succeed in ushering in a great irony. Unless this support, and these elements, can establish a thousand-year Reich here in the United States (come get some), the Democrats will again take power. And members of Congress such as AOC might have a lot to thank this administration for in the end, for the revenue streams this administration has opened up — including arguments for the expansion of executive authority to utilize these streams — are going fund and execute a lot of the “progressive policies” of the future. Much to the continued frustration of those who value a more constrained executive.

In the meantime, I don’t believe this support for the president, nor Carlson, will ever crack. No matter the evidence, no matter the act. I believe this support when it states that it views matters as a rush the cockpit time or die, burn it all (the country) down, lest inevitable ruin strike anyway. That the Constitution is not enough to stand in the way of reorienting society in the way that a select group of others (of a particular or subset religious view, mind you) view as “moral law.” Any student of history has seen these elements before, including with Putin, but perhaps the most effective point to be made in response today is that ruin is not happening. For centuries now, the world has been steadily improving in a general sense, and shows no signs of stopping; in fact, just the opposite is happening the more these elements have decreased in power.

I submit the establishment system of market capitalism and our constitutional system of civil liberties has worked for more Americans today than it has harmed. Has it been a gruesome time here for many in the past, yes, but that can only logically change when the human struggle over limited (Earth-based) resources ends. Accordingly, I believe a majority of this country does not want to rush the cockpit and burn everything down, and thus we outnumber those who do. In this set of circumstances, no law will save us, other than the right to vote.

---

Tyler Broker is the Free Expression and Privacy Fellow at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. His work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review and the Albany Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.